Is Black Lives Matter complicit in violence?

[AgnosticBoy]

Here's a guy that is acting with BLM in mind. I suppose he thinks this is retribution for Blacks.

I don't claim that all black lives matter (BLM) members would do this BUT they are complicit when they don't hone their message. Instead of saying, I can understand why Blacks are angry they need to do more to distinguish RIGHTEOUS anger from unrighteous anger (acting out by looting, engaging in reverse racism, attacking police, and yes putting your knee on a WHITE child's neck just like it happened to George Floyd, etc). All I see are acts of anger with no distinctions being made by BLM leaders.


Debate:
Does anger justify looting, attacking police, etc?

As I suggested, why aren't BLM leaders calling out violence by Blacks, including their own supporters? (A BLM leader from the Brooklyn branch refused to condemn the violence on a Fox News interview.))

[AgnosticBoy]

Why is there no response here? Has BLM condemned this act along with other violent acts?

I'll take it a step further. If you support BLM, then why shouldn't I also conclude that YOU are complicit in the violence that they allow or even fuel?

[Mithrae]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #2]

Your photo links to the Facebook page of Vincent James who in turn links to The Gateway Pundit, which has published the name, state of residence and Facebook page of the man in the picture. However callous, idiotic and dangerous doing that photo was, the child didn't actually suffer physical injury (and, not remembering it, quite probably would suffer no long-term mental harm either... save for the likelihood of being told and reminded by others). But there's a fair chance that the perpetrator will end up being murdered for what he did, either in prison or after he gets out... probably tortured in the process... maybe assaulted a few times before someone actually goes the whole way.

Seems to me that by the line of reasoning you are advocating, if that happens you will be complicit in the murder and torture of that guy, yes? You've heard of an injustice and spoken out against it, and therefore you are partly responsible for the actions of every other person who also professes to be against that injustice. If someone now decides to kneel on a black baby's neck, you will be complicit in that too?

[Bust Nak]

Does anger justify looting, attacking police, etc?

Depends on the specifics. Looting is harder to justify, attacking police is easier to justify.

As I suggested, why aren't BLM leaders calling out violence by Blacks, including their own supporters? (A BLM leader from the Brooklyn branch refused to condemn the violence on a Fox News interview.))

It's fair to assume they when they refuse to condemn something when challenged directly, they condone it.

I'll take it a step further. If you support BLM, then why shouldn't I also conclude that YOU are complicit in the violence that they allow or even fuel?

You can do that, but not for kneeling on a baby's neck, I condemn this action.

...and, not remembering it, quite probably would suffer no long-term mental harm either...

Don't count on that, remembering something is not required for long term mental harm, especially in earlier years.

[Elijah John]

Here's a guy that is acting with BLM in mind. I suppose he thinks this is retribution for Blacks.

I don't claim that all black lives matter (BLM) members would do this BUT they are complicit when they don't hone their message. Instead of saying, I can understand why Blacks are angry they need to do more to distinguish RIGHTEOUS anger from unrighteous anger (acting out by looting, engaging in reverse racism, attacking police, and yes putting your knee on a WHITE child's neck just like it happened to George Floyd, etc). All I see are acts of anger with no distinctions being made by BLM leaders.


Debate:
Does anger justify looting, attacking police, etc?

As I suggested, why aren't BLM leaders calling out violence by Blacks, including their own supporters? (A BLM leader from the Brooklyn branch refused to condemn the violence on a Fox News interview.))

It amazes me that this monster got 14 likes instead of universal condemnation. BLM should denounce this in unmistakable terms. Weak, or no condemnation is tantamount to complicity. This was done in their name.

Also, some BLM supporters are on film teaching their little kids to say "f... the police" That too, is child abuse.

[Mithrae]

...and, not remembering it, quite probably would suffer no long-term mental harm either...

Don't count on that, remembering something is not required for long term mental harm, especially in earlier years.

Good point; I didn't really think that through, and "probably" was an overstatement. But based on the information available (eg. that the child wasn't physically harmed) I don't think we can really tell whether it would have been more or less traumatic for the child in the long term than, say, getting an injection.

It amazes me that this monster got 14 likes instead of universal condemnation. BLM should denounce this in unmistakable terms. Weak, or no condemnation is tantamount to complicity. This was done in their name.

How is it tantamount to complicity? This reminds me of the regular insistence that Muslims "should condemn violence done in the name of Islam"; no matter how often Islamic leaders do condemn violence, there'll always be another person who hasn't seen or hasn't bothered to look for that information demanding that it be condemned to their satisfaction, or another attack that imams are expected to specifically denounce all over again, or some individual Muslims who someone knows from work who haven't yet been heard to be loud enough in their denunciations. Why is anyone responsible or complicit for actions which they themselves did not do or support?

In the case of mass protests turned violent (perhaps even ones not specifically initiated by the BLM organization itself) then maybe a case could be made that they've got some responsibility to make a statement. But claiming that they have some kind of responsibility for the actions of every idiot, criminal and sociopath in America (or maybe the world, would you say?)... that's just ridiculous.

It's worth noting however that a far better case can be made that the actual President of all those idiots, criminals and sociopaths has a more obvious and weightier responsibility to both condemn wrongdoing in the national spotlight and especially to avoid inflammatory or supportive rhetoric: So one would hope that those who want to insist on some kind of complicity for BLM have first applied that standard in the more obvious case of Trump's supportive comments towards white supremicists and his degrading and dehumanizing rhetoric against Latin Americans, the free press, the Chinese, black presidents, black peaceful protestors etc., and hold him complicit for all acts of violence against those groups. Instead, we see some of the same people feigning innocent puzzlement about how a Trump hat could possibly be perceived as racist!

[AgnosticBoy]

It amazes me that this monster got 14 likes instead of universal condemnation. BLM should denounce this in unmistakable terms. Weak, or no condemnation is tantamount to complicity. This was done in their name.

How is it tantamount to complicity? This reminds me of the regular insistence that Muslims "should condemn violence done in the name of Islam"; no matter how often Islamic leaders do condemn violence, there'll always be another person who hasn't seen or hasn't bothered to look for that information demanding that it be condemned to their satisfaction, or another attack that imams are expected to specifically denounce all over again, or some individual Muslims who someone knows from work who haven't yet been heard to be loud enough in their denunciations. Why is anyone responsible or complicit for actions which they themselves did not do or support?

In the case of mass protests turned violent (perhaps even ones not specifically initiated by the BLM organization itself) then maybe a case could be made that they've got some responsibility to make a statement. But claiming that they have some kind of responsibility for the actions of every idiot, criminal and sociopath in America (or maybe the world, would you say?)... that's just ridiculous.

BLM has not condemned the violence. In fact, they have not specified which violence is acceptable and which is not. This is why I place the blame on them. People think they can commit ANY act of violence against Whites and have that be support for BLM.

Here's what one BLM leader said:

The president of Greater New York Black Lives Matter said that if the movement fails to achieve meaningful change during nationwide protests over George Floyd’s killing by Minneapolis police officers, it will “burn down this system.”

“If this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it. All right? And I could be speaking figuratively. I could be speaking literally. It’s a matter of interpretation,” Hawk Newsome said during an interview Wednesday evening on “The Story” with Martha MacCallum.

https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-leade ... is-system/

Getting back to the photo in post 1. What you see in the photo I posted is a RACIST attack against a White human being which happens to be an infant. Had the races been reversed, where you have a Black infant and a White man kneeling on his neck, rest assured you would've seen all of the liberals on this site flooding to this thread. So far it seems it is only you, Bust Nak, and Elijah who are willing to call it like it is and that is telling. Zzyzx remains silent. Koko remains silent. Difflugia is silent.

Interestingly, I've noticed some of the photos being deleted from Facebook so I went ahead and downloaded the picture to my computer. Also, I will not black out or blur out anything. Americans need to see the reality of racism, the faces of the victims (even that of innocent babies), etc.

[Elijah John]

In the case of mass protests turned violent (perhaps even ones not specifically initiated by the BLM organization itself) then maybe a case could be made that they've got some responsibility to make a statement. But claiming that they have some kind of responsibility for the actions of every idiot, criminal and sociopath in America (or maybe the world, would you say?)... that's just ridiculous.

Show me where BLM has denounced are repudiated violence as a tactic to get what they want. Much evil has been done in their name. Just read the graffiti, destruction is what they want. Three civic minded women were scrubbing the mess off of a courthouse, and a BLM supporter drove by and accused them of "abusing their white privilege". Also watch the rioting, arson and the looting. BLM has a responsibility, if they actually don't condone it, they need to condemn it. Loudly as the protesters shout, and often.

To quote NY BLM leader Hawk Newsome, "if we don't get what we want, we will burn the system down".

[quote[It's worth noting however that a far better case can be made that the actual President of all those idiots, criminals and sociopaths has a more obvious and weightier responsibility to both condemn wrongdoing in the national spotlight and especially to avoid inflammatory or supportive rhetoric: So one would hope that those who want to insist on some kind of complicity for BLM have first applied that standard in the more obvious case of Trump's supportive comments towards white supremicists and his degrading and dehumanizing rhetoric against Latin Americans, the free press, the Chinese, black presidents, black peaceful protestors etc., and hold him complicit for all acts of violence against those groups. Instead, we see some of the same people feigning innocent puzzlement about how a Trump hat could possibly be perceived as racist!
[/quote].

The President has condemned the rioters, has Nancy Pelosi?, Chuck Schumer? Bernie Sanders? The Squad? OR Joe Biden? Have any of them said anything like "knock it off, this isn't the way, this hurts our cause"?

I was wondering if you would apply the same generous standard to Trump as you do to BLM. (generic "you" not necessarily you in particular.) Why not cut the President the same slack as you do BLM??

And let me challenge you on that. Where does the President make "supportive comments towards white supremacists"? Towards the Skinheads? Towards Neo-Nazis?

Free press? Do you mean the "fair press"? You honestly think CNN and MSNBC have been fair to President Trump? He makes a Presidential address about the violence, and CNN doesn't cover it. Instead, they cover Covid. When he meets with world leaders, the same thing. Covid, or "Russia!, Russia!, Russia!"., in the recent past. He's lambasted for failing to lead on Covid, but when he resumes the press conferences, CNN doesn't cover them. I know because I check. I see Trump doing something Presidential on Fox, I switch to CNN to see if they cover it, but no. No such luck. I hope CNN will surprise me, but they almost always disappoint.

Same with the rioting. Shown of Fox, downplayed or ignored on CNN. Doesn't fit their narrative or agenda. Puts BLM and Antifa in a bad light. (remember, Chris Cuomo defended Antifa, "at least they are fighting facism" or words to that effect)

"Black Presidents"? Does Obama's skin color make him immune from criticism? When has President Trump ever condemned Obama for his race?
"The Chinese"? Very real problems there, they did unleash this virus on the world. Flights from Wuhan where banned to the interior of China, yet international flights were allowed, unabated, infecting the world. Theft of intellectual property, etc, etc, etc. Shall we go on?

"Black peaceful protesters"? The President doesn't target the peaceful ones, but should the looters, the graffiti "artists", rioters, arsonists etc be given a pass because of their skin color? Or because they riot under the pretext of "racial justice"?

And this is for their white and Antifa buddies as well. Isn't arson a capital crime? Tantamount to attempted murder? They are facing some serious Federal charges when they are apprehended. Especially the ones who attempt to torch Federal courthouses, one with the officers they barricaded inside. THAT is attempted murder.

You repeat unsubstantiated "opinions" (to be diplomatic, let's call the Democrat talking points) as though they were established facts. Leftist nonsense repeated is still nonsense no matter how many times it is repeated. Repetition does not make it come true, as much as they want it to.

And the example of the man abusing that child in the name of BLM is especially sickening. We agree on that much, right? BLM cant denounce every atrocity committed in their name, but this one especially needs denunciation. And the riots are ongoing, calls for peace and "cease and desist" are sorely needed, but they are lacking from BLM AND the Democrat party. The silence is deafening. They could make general and very public calls for peace from their supporters, but they don't. At least not yet.

[Mithrae]

In the case of mass protests turned violent (perhaps even ones not specifically initiated by the BLM organization itself) then maybe a case could be made that they've got some responsibility to make a statement. But claiming that they have some kind of responsibility for the actions of every idiot, criminal and sociopath in America (or maybe the world, would you say?)... that's just ridiculous.

Show me where BLM has denounced are repudiated violence as a tactic to get what they want. Much evil has been done in their name. Just read the graffiti, destruction is what they want. Three civic minded women were scrubbing the mess off of a courthouse, and a BLM supporter drove by and accused them of "abusing their white privilege". Also watch the rioting, arson and the looting. BLM has a responsibility, if they actually don't condone it, they need to condemn it. Loudly as the protesters shout, and often.

To quote NY BLM leader Hawk Newsome, "if we don't get what we want, we will burn the system down".

As I've already pointed out to you (and as you should have already known), this fellow has no affiliation with the original/main BLM organization. I suppose when you've got nothing better to smear 'them' with you'll use whatever you can, but continually making the unqualified assertion that he leads BLM in NY seems to be disingenuous, at best.

You snipped and avoided my main question: Why is anyone responsible or complicit for actions they did not do or support? Unless you can offer some kind coherent and justifiable outline of when and why someone becomes somehow "complicit" in the actions of another person, all such claims are just meaningless propaganda. I'm trying to meet you halfway there with the possibility that BLM has a responsibility to make a statement on violence in mass protests, but it seems you're keen to just charge full steam ahead with all sorts of wild accusations... anyone who says anything whatsoever against a white person is automatically a "BLM supporter" to be cited as representative of the movement!

It's worth noting however that a far better case can be made that the actual President of all those idiots, criminals and sociopaths has a more obvious and weightier responsibility to both condemn wrongdoing in the national spotlight and especially to avoid inflammatory or supportive rhetoric: So one would hope that those who want to insist on some kind of complicity for BLM have first applied that standard in the more obvious case of Trump's supportive comments towards white supremicists and his degrading and dehumanizing rhetoric against Latin Americans, the free press, the Chinese, black presidents, black peaceful protestors etc., and hold him complicit for all acts of violence against those groups. Instead, we see some of the same people feigning innocent puzzlement about how a Trump hat could possibly be perceived as racist!

The President has condemned the rioters, has Nancy Pelosi?, Chuck Schumer? Bernie Sanders? The Squad? OR Joe Biden? Have any of them said anything like "knock it off, this isn't the way, this hurts our cause"?

I have no doubt that Trump has condemned black violent protestors just as he's attacked black peaceful protestors (eg. for taking a knee, calling them "sons of bitches" and suggesting they shouldn't be in the country) and slandered/vilified a black president. What point do you think is made with all those other names? You're simply proving the point I raised by comparison to critics of Islam, that no matter who has condemned violence or how often they've done so, there's always going to be yet another person coming along who didn't see it and indignantly demanding that the condemnations be done to their personal satisfaction... for each and every new incident or issue... by each and every one of 'them,' the people they want to smear.

Have you watched all of those people's interviews, read all of their press releases, viewed all their statements in congress? Maybe you should start a public-access Condemnation Archive, so that you and others can more easily check whether or not some person or group has passed this arbitrary purity test of yours?

But I think that for most of us, there is no presumption of guilt, no insistence that people are complicit in actions which they neither committed nor supported and therefore need to specifically condemn "loudly and often" in order to absolve themselves.

"Black Presidents"? Does Obama's skin color make him immune from criticism? When has President Trump ever condemned Obama for his race?

I'm going to pretend that this is genuine ignorance here, so: All of that birtherism nonsense stating, implying or 'questioning' that Obama was born in Kenya - of which Trump is widely regarded as and boasted himself to be the single biggest proponent - was and is explicitly about Obama's ethnicity.

TrumpBirther.png (89.35 KiB) Viewed 957 times

67 Times Donald Trump Tweeted About the 'Birther' Movement

That's not political criticism, it's gutter-grade vilification/slander based on race. Trying to dress it up and even turn it around as some kind of racism on the part of people who mention it is pretty low: No, Obama's skin colour does not "make him immune from criticism" No-one should have to endure years and years of such baseless, vicious attacks on their nationality and integrity in the face of all evidence, simply because of the infamy (in some folks' eyes) of being the first black president.

And let me challenge you on that. Where does the President make "supportive comments towards white supremacists"? Towards the Skinheads? Towards Neo-Nazis?

You're joking, right? He's publicly going out of his way to support statues and monuments to the white supremicist losers of your Civil War. Not because he admires their success or their loyalty, obviously: This is the man who lambasted McCain as a "loser" for his failed 2008 presidential run and claimed that "I like people who weren't captured"... the man who accuses others of "treason" with shocking regularity (over four dozen times while in office, apparently).

Less than a month ago, he approvingly retweeted a video which included one of his supporters chanting "white power." According to the Sydney Morning Herald (I wonder how many news organizations you are going to pretend are unfairly biased ) "The White House did not respond when asked whether Trump condemned the supporter's racist comment"; never mind this presumption of guilt which you are trying to push, being directly asked for follow-up regarding one's own approving comments and declining to answer is a considerably higher threshold for 'complicity' or tacit endorsement, though perhaps he bowed to public pressure later on. His tweet was removed within two hours, with the White House claiming that he hadn't noticed that part of the video.

Mere weeks before that, Trump, Pence and his campaign used a Nazi concentration camp symbol in a paid ad against Antifa. Again, supposedly just an accidental misunderstanding by all of them... and presumably we are supposed to believe that it's mere coincidence that this symbol designated "political prisoners: social democrats, liberals, socialists, communists, anarchists, gentiles who assisted Jews; trade unionists; and Freemasons" according to Wikipedia.

The former example is well known and you could have found these two more recent examples with an incredibly simple Google search for 'Trump support white supremicists'; it's not as if I'm an avid follower of American politics with a bunch of ammo up my sleeves. No doubt there's plenty of other instances which could be found by looking for another ten minutes. One would have to be wilfully ignorant - or blindly determined to defend every single one of his all too common inflammatory/ambiguous remarks and 'accidents' whatever the cost to reason and integrity - in order to ask "whatever do you mean" with a straight face when his support for white supremicists is mentioned.

I was wondering if you would apply the same generous standard to Trump as you do to BLM. (generic "you" not necessarily you in particular.) Why not cut the President the same slack as you do BLM??

As I explained, quite clearly I thought, Trump is the President of all the people in America: He actually has a formal association with them, an implicit (and possibly explicit, for all I know) duty to lead the nation and speak on matters of national concern. Is that really so difficult to understand? That Trump is President?

Or are you actually trying to argue that the only thing you expect from your President is to be equally or slightly less inflammatory, ignorant and doublespeaking than some random protest organization?

Many would argue that he doesn't even meet that meagre standard. And this isn't random whataboutism, so as to warrant more pointless questions about Chuck Schumer (whoever that is, I think I googled him once) or Bernie Sanders (okay, I know who he is) or anyone else: Trump's habit of using inflammatory and borderline if not outright racist rhetoric was established long before he became president, before he became the Republican nominee... even before BLM existed, in the case of his birtherism. And of the people here arguing that BLM is somehow "complicit" in actions which they neither committed nor encouraged, both you and AgnosticBoy seem to be supportive of Trump. So the pertinent question is not "Will random generic people cut poor little Trump the same slack as they may or may not grant to BLM," it's why don't you, Elijah John and AgnosticBoy, grant as much or more leeway and benefit of the doubt to this non-official protest movement as you seem utterly determined to grant the current holder of the highest office in your country?

Why do you seem to hold a random protest organization to a much higher standard than your President, expecting much more carefulness in their rhetoric and thoroughness in their denunciations/ideological purity than Trump has ever shown?